Why Bush’s re-election scares me

11.14.04

Because of things like this:

Republican senator who has questioned whether an abortion opponent could win approval to the U.S. Supreme Court must agree to back President Bush’s nominees if he is to head the committee acting on those nominations, the Senate’s Republican leader said.

Bush has four years to fill Supreme Court seats with basically no opposition. He doesn’t have to think about future re-election anymore. He has a majority in both houses and a huge debt to the far-right conservative Christian groups. Stacking the court to overturn Roe v. Wade may be only the beginning.

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Josh 11.15.04 at 9:15 AM

If there were blogs around in 96, would they have said the same about Clinton being reelected? That he might load the supreme court with ‘liberals’ heaven forbid?

For one, IMO, the US has a pretty good democracy going for it where, until now, they accepted the candidate who was voted into office as the President. The democracy is harmed when even after the elctions are over and one side wins, the other side keeps hammering out messages that the winner is somewhat illegitimate, will do harm, is bad for the country, etc… As kids, we called this the ‘poor losers’ effect.

Since when did countries get so divided into liberals and conservatives?
When Bush Sr. won against Dukakis, were the Dems/liberals so vocally disappointed?
When Bush Sr. lost to Clinton, were the Reps/conservatives claiming the sky will fall?
When Clinton beat Dole, was he any less legitimate a winner?

I don’t think so. The liberals over there, seem to be like the liberals/left over here (Israel); if they don’t win, then the country is going to hell. When Peres lost to Netanyahu, he’s quoted as saying, ‘the Israelis lost’.

Anyway, Roe v. Wade can’t be overturned in four years by adding a few conservative judges. But if ‘family values’ really starts to pick up steam, then maybe in four years, America will again vote G.O.P. and relegate the Dems and Michael Moore to whine another four years.

Reply

2 Francis 11.17.04 at 4:46 AM

It can be overturned though. All it needs is for someone to appeal to the SC there arguing that the current abortion law is unconstitutional (violates right to life, or perhaps something more creative), and show reasoning as to why Roe v. Wade was flawed. I don’t know how far right Bush’s appointees will be, or whether they would have the guts to overturn it. But it’s certainly not impossible now — it’s more likely than it ever has been.

Dole’s supporters certainly did say the US was going to Sodom and Gomorrah when Clinton won his 2nd term. I don’t for a second believe sore losing is a particularly liberal thing to do, I think it’s a political thing to do. In Britain, Labour Party never rang hell warnings as Thatcher/Major won election after election. Ditto Liberals under Turner when Mulroney was in power. Since when have politicians been known to adapt so well to other ideologies after elections, particularly to the winning side? They went into politics because they believed in something, and one voting day won’t change that.

I don’t think democracy is in serious trouble in the US. But the incredible success of the GOP and new lack of opposition resulting from it reminds me of the Churchillian quip: “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others.” Shutting out opposing power or debate, and therefore negating the checks and balances system there, is something that one might be a little concerned about.

My two cents. (Canadian ones, go dollar go).

Reply

3 TM Lutas 11.19.04 at 6:46 PM

The pro-life cause (the large, sane majority of it at least) well understands that the real prize is in convincing society. To that end, Roe v Wade is the last target, not the first. Partial birth abortion restrictions exposed an awful lot of ugly extremism on the “pro-choice” side. A realistic look forward will see more of the same, nibbling at the margins, reducing the outrageous, piece by piece, establishing a consensus in society that is pro-life.

Eventually, I would expect abortion to be severely limited but not before there are much stronger social systems to properly deal with the consequences so that the extra children born are well cared for.

Reply

4 Joe N. 11.20.04 at 6:46 PM

Concider what Bush’s stand on abortion really is – one of the only thing he said about it is that the law shouldn’t lead in social matters: “When people have a conscensus on what they believe, laws will follow, but not before then”.

When the pro-choice folks give the moral dynamics as much careful though as they do for end-or-life issues, the death penalty, and euthenasia, I’ll start listening to them.

But for now I’ll summarize by retelling an encounter I had with a pro-choice college age woman. She was wearing a button on her rucksack that said “Meat is Murder” – when I asked her why she’s a vegitarian, she gave me the same reasons a pro-lifer gives for being pro-life. I asked her if she concidered the two issues in the same way. She embarassingly said no.
I ran into her again three weeks later. She looked at me with a calm, thoughful, slightly sad look on her face, though she aknowledged me and smiled.

No more pins *at all* on her ruck-sack.

Reply

5 Francis 11.21.04 at 5:04 AM

I expect abortion will be limited to some degree in the US, perhaps over the course of the next Bush term. But I’m not at all sure about it happening here. There is no law on the books in Canada, and every time Parliament has toyed with the idea of passing one it’s been too controversial. Wisely (and weakly), the government of Canada has since 1989 refused to table an abortion bill in the House.

For my part, I’m not angry there is no such law. We have enough issues polarizing our nation. And I’m comfortable with the fact that most doctors will not terminate a pregnancy after a certain point for ethical reasons — I think it’s best that we give them due discretion.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: